ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 96649-50 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYNDON V. MACOY

  • G.R. No. 109660 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO NELL

  • G.R. No. 124914 July 2, 1997 - JESUS UGADDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123074 July 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO M. FERNANDEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1017 July 7, 1997 - OSCAR B. LAMBINO v. AMADO A. DE VERA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1245 July 7, 1997 - BENIGNO G. GAVIOLA v. NOEL NAVARETTE

  • G.R. No. 105760 July 7, 1997 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107193 July 7, 1997 - EUGENIO TENEBRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112006 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO S. DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 114275 July 7, 1997 - IÑIGO F. CARLET v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116962 July 7, 1997 - MARIA SOCORRO CACA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118940-41 & 119407 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MEJIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119872 July 7, 1997 - REMEDIOS NAVOA RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122206 July 7, 1997 - RAFAEL ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105284 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO ZUMIL

  • G.R. No. 106099 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109814 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO MAALAT

  • G.R. No. 112797 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NIDA ALEGRO

  • G.R. No. 114265 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MAGALLANES

  • G.R. No. 115307 July 8, 1997 - MANUEL LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115703 July 8, 1997 - EPIFANIO L. CASOLITA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117501 July 8, 1997 - SOLID HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122308 July 8, 1997 - PURITA S. MAPA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. SC-96-1 July 10, 1997 - DAMASO S. FLORES v. BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1236 July 11, 1997 - MADONNA MACALUA v. DOMINGO TIU, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1249 July 11, 1997 - PACITA SY TORRES v. FROILAN S. CABLING

  • G.R. No. 104865 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO PONTILAR, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 113511-12 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SINOC

  • G.R. No. 115033 July 11, 1997 - PONCIANO T. MATANGUIHAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123204 July 11, 1997 - NATIONWIDE SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1158 July 14, 1997 - EUFEMIA BERCASIO v. HERBERTO BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106153 July 14, 1997 - FLORENCIO G. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108838 July 14, 1997 - PAGCOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116528-31 July 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETO ADORA

  • G.R. No. 108492 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL BANIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118078 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 123379 July 15, 1997 - BAROTAC SUGAR MILLS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120437-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO ALVARIO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1382 July 17, 1997 - REXEL M. PACURIBOT v. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR.

  • G.R. No. 105002 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIARANGAN DANSAL

  • G.R. No. 108634 July 17, 1997 - ANTONIO P. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111165 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO MERCADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113257 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY LASCOTA

  • G.R. No. 114742 July 17, 1997 - CARLITOS E. SILVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118860 July 17, 1997 - ROLINDA B. PONO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120262 July 17, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125195 July 17, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA BANDOLINO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1362 July 18, 1997 - DSWD, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. BELEN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1283 July 21, 1997 - DAVID C. NAVAL, ET AL. v. JOSE R. PANDAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108488 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODENCIO NARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111002 July 21, 1997 - PACIFIC MARITIME SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NICANOR RANAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117402 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLIE L. ALVARADO

  • G.R. No. 119184 July 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF FELICIDAD CANQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121768 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASTILLO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 122250 & 122258 July 21, 1997 - EDGARDO C. NOLASCO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124347 July 21, 1997 - CMS STOCK BROKERAGE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125510 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO LISING

  • G.R. No. 111933 July 23, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112429-30 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO P. CAYETANO

  • G.R. Nos. 118736-37 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TANG WAI LAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1205 July 24, 1997 - OSCAR P. DE LOS REYES v. ESTEBAN H. ERISPE, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1383 July 24, 1997 - JOSE LAGATIC v. JOSE PEÑAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104663 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID SALVATIERRA

  • G.R. No. 105004 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MAROLLANO

  • G.R. No. 107723 July 24, 1997 - EMS MANPOWER & PLACEMENT SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111211 July 24, 1997 - ABS-CBN EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113235 July 24, 1997 - VICTORINA MEDINA, ET AL. v. CITY SHERIFF, MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113366-68 July 24, 1997 - GREGORIO ISABELO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116635 July 24, 1997 - CONCHITA NOOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118458 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 120276 July 24, 1997 - SINGA SHIP MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121075 July 24, 1997 - DELTA MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121867 July 24, 1997 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LAB., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127262 July 24, 1997 - HUBERT WEBB, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. 95-6-55-MTC & P-96-1173 July 28, 1997 - REPORT ON AUDIT IN THE MTC OF PEÑARANDA, NUEVA ECIJA

  • G.R. No. 102858 July 28, 1997 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103209 July 28, 1997 - APOLONIO BONDOC, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110823 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROCHEL TRAVERO

  • G.R. No. 112323 July 28, 1997 - HELPMATE, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113344 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATANACIO LUTO

  • G.R. No. 116668 July 28, 1997 - ERLINDA A. AGAPAY v. CARLINA V. PALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116726 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO P. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 118822 July 28, 1997 - G.O.A.L., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119000 July 28, 1997 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119649 July 28, 1997 - RICKY GALICIA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119868 July 28, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120072 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO I. MESA

  • G.R. No. 123361 July 28, 1997 - TEOFILO CACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126556 July 28, 1997 - NELSON C. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117742 July 29, 1997 - GEORGE M. TABERRAH v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997 - PATRICIA FIGUEROA v. SIMEON BARRANCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97369 July 31, 1997 - P.I. MANPOWER PLACEMENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99030 July 31, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106582 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO BALDERAS

  • G.R. No. 107802 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JASON NAREDO

  • G.R. No. 108399 July 31, 1997 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. ROBERT MIRASOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108619 July 31, 1997 - EPIFANIO LALICAN v. FILOMENO A. VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113689 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SANGIL, SR.

  • G.R. No. 113958 July 31, 1997 - BANANA GROWERS COLLECTIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116060 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DE LA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 116292 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY PEÑERO

  • G.R. No. 119068 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997 - CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121157 July 31, 1997 - HEIRS OF SEGUNDA MANINGDING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123561 July 31, 1997 - DELIA R. NERVES v. CSC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124678 July 31, 1997 - DELIA BANGALISAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 107723   July 24, 1997 - EMS MANPOWER & PLACEMENT SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 107723. July 24, 1997.]

    EMS MANPOWER & PLACEMENT SERVICES, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and LUISA G. MANUEL, Respondents.

    Manuel T. Collado for Petitioner.

    Erligh B. Barbaquias for Private Respondent.

    SYNOPSIS


    Luisa G. Manuel was hired as a domestic helper in Hong Kong by Deborah Li Siu Yee. Her contract was for two years, but stayed for only two months because she was dismissed and repatriated to the Philippines after she made repeated demands for her rights under the employment contract.

    Luisa filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration for illegal dismissal against Yee and illegal exaction against petitioner EMS Manpower. The POEA Administrator dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.

    On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision of the POEA Administrator, finding no clear evidence to support the POEA’s finding that Luisa was dismissed for a just cause.

    The lone issue is whether Luisa Manuel was dismissed for a just cause. Petitioner EMS argued that Yee was justified in pre-terminating Luisa’s employment because Luisa allegedly hit her employer’s child, as evidenced by a photocopy of a telex allegedly transmitted by Luisa herself. This action supposedly constituted serious misconduct under Article 282 of the Labor Code and also a violation of the employment contract.

    The Supreme Court declared that Luisa was unjustly dismissed from her employment. As correctly ruled by the NLRC, the telex could hardly be recognized as sufficient evidence of Luisa’s purported misconduct. It was a single document totally uncorroborated and easily fabricated to suit one’s personal interest and purpose.

    The NLRC decision is affirmed.


    SYLLABUS


    1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; EMPLOYMENT; DISMISSAL ON THE GROUND OF MISCONDUCT; TELEX OF WHAT OCCURRED IS INSUFFICIENT. — EMS justified pre-terminating Luisa’s employment due to the fact that the latter apparently hit her employer’s child, as evidenced by a photocopy of a telex allegedly transmitted by the latter herself. The telex could hardly be recognized as sufficient, let alone substantial evidence of Luisa’s purported misconduct. It was a single document, totally uncorroborated and easily concocted or fabricated to suit one’s personal interest and purpose. This Court is convinced that Luisa was dismissed from her employment without any valid or just cause, in contravention of her security of tenure, as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Labor Code, as amended. Under Article XIII, Section 3 of the Charter," (t)he State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas," and all workers "shall be entitled to security of tenure." In basically the same tenor, the Labor Code provides in Article 279 that" (i)n cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title (on termination of employment).’’

    2. ID.; ID.; ILLEGAL DISMISSAL; COMPLIANCE WITH EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, NOT SUFFICIENT. — There was illegal dismissal in the case at bar although Yee adequately complied with the employment contract. Said contract is not in conformity with our laws inasmuch as it failed to stipulate the "just causes for the termination of the contract or of the service of the workers," as mandated by Section 14(e), Rule V, Book I of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.


    D E C I S I O N


    ROMERO, J.:


    This petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or a temporary restraining order seeks the nullification of the decision of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated November 29, 1991, awarding private respondent her salary for the unexpired portion of her employment contract and attorney’s fees, as well as its resolution of October 28, 1992, denying her motion for reconsideration of said decision. cd

    Private respondent Luisa G. Manuel was hired as a domestic helper in Hong Kong by Deborah Li Siu Yee on April 13, 1989, for a period of two years from the time of her arrival. Under her employment contract, 1 secured through the efforts of petitioner placement agency (EMS), she would receive HK$2,500.00 per month during the term of her contract. Luisa worked for her Chinese employer in Hong Kong from August 2, 1989, until October 1, 1989, when she was dismissed and repatriated to the Philippines after she made repeated demands for her weekly rest day, of which she was denied from the start of her service, in violation of Clause 6(a) of the employment contract. 2 She also complained that she was not allowed to meet or see fellow Filipinos. By the time she left, she had only received a separation pay of HK$2,500.00 and her return flight ticket.

    On October 23, 1989, Luisa filed a complaint before the Adjudication Department of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for illegal dismissal and illegal exaction against Yee, EMS and its surety, Paramount Insurance Corporation. In a decision dated February 18, 1991, 3 POEA Administrator Jose N. Sarmiento dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The only reasons he advanced were that Luisa was given her separation pay in lieu of notice of her termination in compliance with Clause 12(a) 4 of the employment contract, and Yee actually paid her repatriation expenses as provided in Clause 12(e) 5 of said contract and as required by POEA Rules and Regulations. Thus, he concluded that under the circumstances, respondent (Yee) has complied with the law and with complainant’s contract of employment and her consequential repatriation cannot be termed illegal. In this regard, complainant cannot lay claim over the salaries for the unexpired portion of her contract nor can this Office award the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On appeal, the NLRC reversed and set aside POEA Administrator Sarmiento’s decision after finding no evidence clear and convincing enough to support the POEA’s finding that Luisa was "not illegally dismissed," and after concluding that there was no just cause for her dismissal. Hence, on November 29, 1991, it rendered its assailed decision, 6 the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the DECISION appealed from is reversed and set aside, and another one is hereby rendered ordering respondent EMS Manpower and Placement Services to pay complainant the peso equivalent at the time of actual payment of the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND HONG KONG DOLLARS (HK$55,000.00) as her salaries for the unexpired portion of her contract;

    2. Five (5%) per centum of the total award, as and by way of attorney’s fees.

    The claims for moral and exemplary damages are hereby dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

    SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration having been denied in the resolution of October 26, 1992, the instant petition was filed.

    The lone issue for resolution is whether Luisa Manuel was illegally dismissed or if her termination was for a just and valid cause.

    We see no reason to depart from the NLRC’s decision. Not only is it supported by the facts and the law, but there is also no showing that it was rendered with grave abuse of discretion. The assailed judgment must be affirmed and the petition, consequently, dismissed.chanrobles

    EMS argues that Yee was justified in pre-terminating Luisa’s employment due to the fact that the latter apparently hit her employer’s child, as evidenced by a photocopy of a telex 7 allegedly transmitted by the latter herself. This action supposedly constituted "serious misconduct under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, 8 and "misconduct" under Clause 12(b-ii) 9 of the employment contract. Even assuming arguendo that Luisa’s act does not fall within the ambit of said Clause 12(b-ii), her termination would still be valid in accordance with Clause 12(a). 10

    These contentions are not persuasive. As correctly ruled by the NLRC, the telex could hardly be recognized as sufficient, let alone substantial evidence of Luisa’s purported misconduct. It was a single document, totally uncorroborated and easily concocted or fabricated to suit one’s personal interest and purpose. The best supporting evidence would have been a statement from the child’s teacher who allegedly witnessed the incident, but none was presented. In the same manner, the affidavit 11 of a certain Nestor M. Palomar, to the effect that he used to meet fellow domestic helper Luisa at the Center Square Garden in August 1989, thereby debunking the latter’s claims that Yee prevented her from congregating with other Filipinos, is at best hearsay evidence because Palomar was not presented to testify at the POEA hearings, even though he was available.

    This Court is convinced that Luisa was dismissed from her employment without any valid cause, in contravention of her security of tenure, as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Labor Code, as amended. Under Article XIII, Section 3 of the Charter," (t)he State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas," and all workers "shall be entitled to security to tenure." In basically the same tenor, the Labor Code provides in Article 279 that" (i)n cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title (on termination of employment)."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Finally, contrary to the claim of EMS that there was no illegal dismissal in the case at bar because Yee adequately complied with the employment contract by paying Luisa a one-month separation pay in lieu of notice and shouldering her repatriation expenses, suffice it to say that said contract is not in conformity with our laws inasmuch as it failed to stipulate the "just causes for the termination of the contract or of the service of the workers," as mandated by Section 14(e), Rule V, Book I of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The assailed decision of November 29, 1991 and resolution of October 28, 1992, of the National Labor Relations Commission are hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against petitioner.

    SO ORDERED.

    Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

    Torres, Jr., J., is on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Annex "A", " Rollo, pp. 24-28.

    2. It states that, "The Helper shall be entitled to at least one rest day in each week. A rest day is a continuous period of not less than twenty four hours. The dates of the weekly days will be appointed by the Employer who must, unless the rest days are on a regular basis, notify the Helper before the beginning of each week."cralaw virtua1aw library

    3. Annex "E," Rollo, pp. 45-49.

    4. It states that, "In the event of either party wishing to terminate this Contract prior to the expiry of this Contract, the initiating party shall give in writing to the other party one month’s notice or forfeit one month’s wages in lieu of notice. . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    5. It states that, "In case of termination of Contract under Clause 12(b), the Helper shall be repatriated to Manila, Philippines or at the Helper’s request sent to her place of origin if such place is nearer to Hong Kong. The Employer shall pay the costs of the return passage supplemented by the travelling allowance stated in Clause 7(c)."cralaw virtua1aw library

    6. Rollo, pp. 58-70.

    7. Ibid., p. 39.

    8. "Art. 282. Termination by employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    9. It states that, "Notwithstanding the provision of Clause 12(a), the Employer may in writing terminate the Contract without notice or payment in lieu of notice if the Helper, in relation to the employment,

    (i) . . .;

    (ii) commits misconduct, such misconduct being inconsistent with the due and faithful discharge of her duties; . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    10. Fn. 4, supra.

    11. Dated June 21, 1990; Rollo, p. 40.

    G.R. No. 107723   July 24, 1997 - EMS MANPOWER & PLACEMENT SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED